Justice, Law, Judiciary, Education and Peace

EDUCATION, 13 Oct 2025

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad – TRANSCEND Media Service

Justice, Law, Judiciary, Education and Peace are so closely interconnected that none of them can truly exit when others disappear.

Truly, Justice has been a long cry of the common people since the beginning of the history of civilization. True education is the foundation of true love. Integrated unfoldment of elements in man, viz. body, vitality, mind, intellect and spirit, which constitute him and her, is education. Love is the mother of justice. Empathy is love. Justice is the mother of peace. Equity and fairness is justice. Altruism is peace. The basis of law should be justice. Law is rule of governance. For better and fair governance, law must be based on justice. And then, it should be assurance for justice. Judiciary is a system of courts and judges. Judiciary should protect the law. Legislative should make the law based on justice, and amend it, if law becomes licence for injustice. Executive should play the role to execute the law to give justice. And the role of judiciary or court is to restore justice. Then the result of justice would certainly be peace.

But the mother of peace, that is justice, is yet to be born. Because players in the games of justice, law, judiciary, legislative and executive are the products of mis-education and non-education. If men and women have mis-education and non-education, they would practice injustice, they would take law in their own hands; judiciary, legislative and executive would become the centers of smugglers, antisocial and criminals. Men and women exploit men and women. Men and women would hijack justice entitled for other men and women. And justice and peace would be the greatest casualties.

Today laws are not only archaic but they are monarchical, despotic, dictatorial, oligarchic, anarchic, aristocratic and democratic. Thus there are maximum numbers of non-democratic nation-states in the world. And injustice is inherent in the laws of these States. Judiciary is one of the instruments of justice. But it has limitation of law of the land. If law is based on injustice, and even if a judge wishes to deliver justice to the litigants in the court of law, he or she cannot do so. He or she has to pronounce his or her judgment as per the law of the State. Thus judiciary acts upon the laws of the nation-states. “Law Courts”, not the “Courts of Justice” are there, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said about Court, Law and Justice, “This is a Court of Law, young man, not a Court of Justice”. Hence there is no hope of justice from judiciary in non-democratic nation-states.

After the Amritsar massacre, Mahatma Gandhi said, “I can retain neither respect, nor affection for a government which has been moving from wrong to wrong. …The government must be moved to repentance. I have therefore ventured to suggest non-cooperation. … Which if unattended by violence, must compel the government to retrace its steps and undo its wrongs?”

At his trial, Gandhi admitted his guilt. He confessed that he had deliberately broken the law. He said to Judge Broomsfield, “I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I am here therefore, to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime and what appears to me to be highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, Sir, is either to resign your post or to inflict on me the severest penalty.”

Judge Broomsfield replied to Gandhi, “It would be impossible to ignore the fact that in the eyes of millions of your countrymen you are a great patriot and a great leader. Even those who differ from you in politics look upon you as a man of high ideals and of noble and even saintly life.” However, the judge, having praised Gandhi for the justice of his cause, sentenced him to prison for the illegality of his conduct.

This story was told by a Professor of Law at Harvard to explain to his students the decision in a famous court trial. One of the students objected saying, “This may be legal, Sir, but it is not just,” whereupon the Professor replied with a cynical smile, “if you want justice, young man, go across the street to the Divinity School. This is the Law School.”

Advocate Bram Fischer was one of the great figures of the Bar in South Africa during the apartheid era. He said in his trial, which very much concern law, justice and morality, “…My Lord, when a man is on trial for his political beliefs and actions, two courses are open before him. He can either confess to his transgressions or plead for mercy, or he can justify his beliefs and explains why he has acted as he did. Were I to ask for forgiveness today, I would betray my cause. That course, my Lord, is not open to me I believe that what I did was right, and I must therefore explain to your Lordship what my motives were, why I hold beliefs that I do, and why I was compelled to act in accordance with them.

… I accept, my Lord, the general rule for the protection of a society laws should be obeyed. But when the laws themselves become immoral, and require the citizen to take part in an organized system of oppression – if only by his silence and apathy – then I believe that a higher duty arises. This compels one to refuse to recognize such laws. And Bram Fischer was sentenced to life imprisonment for his protest against the apartheid law.

And Socrates in his trial said, “I thought it my duty to face the danger out in the cause of law and justice and not to be an accomplice in your unjust proposal, from the fear of imprisonment or death and he was condemned to death.

Judgement as punishment in the case of Mahatma Gandhi, Bram Fischer and Socrates for disobeying the unjust laws of their respective nations, views of Harvard Professor of Law in the court’s decision of Mahatma Gandhi’s trial and the opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. about Court, Law and Justice reveal the truth that laws did not carry justice.

It seems, in law, what is lawful is justice. This is the reason Austin says that justice is no criterion whatsoever for the evaluation of law, it is synonym for what is lawful.

Perhaps this was why man of justice like Christ, Socrates, Rector John Huss, Bruno, Mahatma Gandhi, Bram Fischer and many others had been victims of unjust laws of their respective nations, and some of them lost their lives to the cause of justice and peace.

But when we do not obey the unjust law, we plead justice for humanity. Alexis De Tocqueville rightly says, “When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.”

There are democracies in a few nations of the world. The democratic States’ laws are based on justice. Here court is considered as “Temple of Justice”, and judiciary has independent Identity in deciding the case, and there is a great hope of justice to the people from judiciary here. But Jefferson has doubt on judiciary in democracy and warned saying, “Nothing is more dangerous to democracy than the independent judiciary.” In democracy laws are twisted and manipulated and justice is hijacked by rich, mighty and tricky people of the society. Here the court, “Temple of Justice” becomes “Market of Justice” where selling and buying of justice are being done. In the Courts, in most cases justice is delayed, in some, it is denied, and there are marry cases which never reach to the courts to get justice due to lack of proper means.

Then President of India K.R. Narayanan, on 28 January 2000, addressing the golden jubilee function of the Supreme Court stressed the need for an accountable judiciary in the country to dispense quick, affordable and incorruptible justice to the people to sustain their faith in courts. Speaking in favour of delivering expeditious and inexpensive justice to the poor, he quoted Mahatma Gandhi that law has become the luxury of the rich and joy of the gambler. In a Press Interview, then Chief Minister of Kerala State in India, Namboodripad said that Marx and Engels considered the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and that the judges are dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices, that when evidence is balanced between a well-dressed, pot-bellied rich man and a poor, ill-dressed and illiterate person, a judge instinctively favors the former.

Eminent Jurist Nani A. Palkhivala, in his popular book: We, the Nation: The Lost Decades, quotes the sayings of Lord Gifford, Q.C, who said that British judges are ignorant and biased, the bias being the product of their education and social position. In his book, where’s the Justice? Lord Gifford observes that a male-dominated Judiciary is unable to understand the problems of women. Justice Warren Burger, the former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court told the American Bar Association, “The harsh truth is that we may be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated The notion that ordinary people want black-robed judges, well-dressed lawyers and fine-paneled courtrooms as the setting to resolve their disputes, is not correct. People with legal problems, like people with pain, want relief and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible.

Justice J.N. Patel of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in India said at law festival organized by the Law Department of Ambedkar College, Nagpur, “Judiciary as an institution has been fractured, over-burdened, struggling to reduce to mounting arrears and this has adversely affected the justice delivery system. The system has been hijacked by rich people who could engage high profile and over-paid lawyers. In such dismal scenario it is difficult for poor man to secure justice and therefore we are duty bound to reach them.” Then Indian President Narayanan said also, “The law court is not a cathedral but a Casino where so much depend on the throw of the dice.” On the dispense of justice, he mentioned a case in which a person accused of murder went scot free as clinching evidences were lacking, though the judge himself was convinced that the person did commit the deed he was charged with. On that occasion, then Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India A. S. Anand said rule of law is the hallmark of the civil society and Judiciary should strive to uphold it. The apex court, is inheritor of the great traditions, he said, and added that without access to unpolluted, expeditious and affordable justice, the grieved people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands.

Retributive justice is concerned with punishing an offender. There are punitive practices in all the present system of judiciary. Persons engaged in the courts of law work to punish the accused. The criminal justice system is primarily concerned with the criminals, and to some extent with their rehabilitation, but the victims suffer even after victimization when their problems are ignored by the police, the prosecutor and the Judges. Only punishment to the criminals cannot give justice to the victims. Therefore offender-oriented criminal justice system must be changed, and it should be responsive to the needs of the victims also to give them full justice.

Restorative justice has come into existence with appeal and argument worldwide of those who know limitations of formal legal system to deal with injustice, particularly crime and its fallout.

Renowned Australian Scholar John Braithwaite in his famous book: Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation had developed the concept of restorative justice and applied it in practical situation. He demonstrates the superior effectiveness of restoring victims, offenders and communities compared with punitive practices of modern judicial systems and he shows also how the experience of responsive regulation business and restorative justice practices can enrich each other. Braithwaite is a Professor of Law at Australian National University in Canberra and Head of The Regulatory Institutions Network there.

Restorative justice has the capacity to transform the role of the legal system in preventing crime and strengthening the response of those at the community level who first encounter it when it does happen (Braithwaite). Heather Strang and Braithwaite give a broad definition of restorative justice, “Stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to communicate about the consequences of the injustice and what is to be done to right the wrong.” In view of Braithwaite, restorative justice in to contribute not only to the creation of a more crime free society but also to a society where our whole legal system works more efficiently and fairly, to a society where we do better at developing the human and social capital of our young and to a more peaceful world.

In fact, Braithwaite’s precept and praxis of restorative justice are influenced by the passive Justice into active love of Jesus Christ, John Huss and Mahatma Gandhi, who tried and practiced to bring positive change in offenders and victims both.

It is good step taken by the Govt. of India for establishing National Legal Service Authority to enable timely and fair justice to all and quick disposal of pending cases. It is also good effort that then Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh launched on 6 March 2005 the “National Legal Literacy Mission 2005-10” for the legal empowerment of all sections of society, including downtrodden, minorities and women. And then Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti declared the year 2005 as the Year of Excellence in Judiciary at the 3rd Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers on 18 September 2004.

This is why varieties of theories of justice and law have been developed.

Plato invented the idea of justice as a kind of harmony within the psyche (within single person) and within polis (within society). In Politeia of Plato, justice brings the other three virtues, viz, wisdom, courage and temperance. In laws (Nomoi), codified law takes over the function of the guardian. In view of Plato, justice becomes a virtue that rules, organizes and delimits the actions of both the individual and the society (the polis – The polis” refers to the ancient Greek city-state).

Aristotle, in his book IV of Nicomachean Ethics – (The Nicomachean Ethics by the Greek philosopher Aristotle considers the nature of human action and ethics, rooted in the concept of eudaimonia, often translated as happiness) agrees to more general concept of justice but he keeps separate its definition from Plato’s teaching about harmony within the soul. He makes a difference between justice that is used to human activities and justice that gives assurance to equality as mason dictates. Aristotle believes that “justitia legalis” (ustitia legalis is a Latin phrase that translates to “legal justice” or “justice according to the law) has priority since human actions acquire their purpose from ultimate realization of a good constitution of the community that promotes the happiness of the community’s citizens. Commutative justice (justifia commutative) controls the relations of mutual exchange. Compensatory punitive justice is a type of commutative. According to Aristotle, justice is equality. He showed a difference between distributive and synallagmatic (corrective or equalising) justice. Distributive justice is the principle on which wealth and honour are to be distributed to the citizens of the community here the equality is between what each gets and what he deserves. Synallagmatic (it is a legal adjective referring to a contract where each party has reciprocal obligations to the other, meaning both are bound to perform and receive something of value. In other words, it’s a bilateral contract in common law, where each party’s undertaking is in exchange for the other’s) justice is the principle governing dealings between one citizen and another-here equality is to be between what is given and what is received.

In views of Jean Bodin, as stated in his: Six Liveres de la republique (The Six Books of the Republic), the State was the just government or administration, by a number of families, of that which is common to them”, whereby the sovereignty of these few families is equated with the lasting and unrestricted power of the State.

Hugo Grotius gave the theory of ‘just war’. In his De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), he has written that the basis of his theory is on the concept of natural right. He considers war as the main aim of any theory of justice. He describes four different types of war: 1. war between private individuals, which in civil context, must be limited to self-defense; 2 war between an individual and the state, which is in principle forbidden; 3. war waged by the state against the individual, which is to be regulated through codes of criminal law derived from the principles of justice; and 4. war between States, which falls under the jurisdiction of international law.

For Machiavelli, justice is no external criterion for the quality of a community, but only acquires its definition within the context of a given society.

In the opinion of Hobbes, there is no justice for man in his natural aboriginal state, only the natural right of each individual to self preservation by all means. Hobbes does not recognize any standard of justice for relations between sovereign States.

Kant did not develop a theory of substantive justice. According to Kant, justice is the formal principle governing the possibility of law, and law is defined as “the content of those conditions under which the arbitrary will of another can be brought under a general law of liberty.”

According to Rousseau, general will and the law is necessarily just because he does not accept the separation of formal law from individual morality. He says that it is pointless to speculate whether a law can be unjust since nobody can be unjust to himself.

John Rawls calls his concept of justice as fairness and he considers justice as social virtue also. He views justice as a fundamental obligation of political institution. His principle of justice could secure peace if there is common sense of justice According to his principles, world-wide justice could secure peace if there is a common sense of justice in global society.

The entitlement theory of justice given by Robert Nozick in his book: Anarchy, State and Utopia reject all varieties of “timeslice theories of justice”. According to this theory, the justness of any apportionment depends on how a certain apportionment came about. This theory has brought a historical dimension to the definition of distributive justice.

Man is governed by variety of laws, viz. divine law, human law, natural law, universal law, secular law, positive law. A law contrary to the principles of natural law cannot be obligatory. A human law at variance with natural law is not really law at all but merely an abuse of violation of law. It emphasizes the ethical aspect of law and denies validity to an unjust law. Natural law does not override human or positive law.

In the sense of Plato, ‘natural law’ was the unchanging idea of law, which being forever the same, readily becomes also the measure and criterion of positive law.

Aristotle accepted the view of nature but rejected Plato’s dichotomy between the essence of things as grasped by the intellect and their factual existence.

Goodhart defines law as those rules of conduct on which the existence of the society is based and the violation of which in consequence tends to invalidate the existence of society.

According to Heinrich Rommen, politics cannot be divorced from the moral universe and natural law remains the criterion by which the justice of law is to be determined.

John Austin defined law as the command of a sovereign in a particular legal system with sanction behind it as distinguished from the use of the word ‘Law’ in other contexts such as divine law, law of physics, chemistry etc. According to Austin, justice is no criterion whatsoever for the evaluation of law; it is a mere synonym for what is lawful.

Holmes J. said, “The prophecies of what the Courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by law.”

According to Justice Cardozo, “Law and obedience to law are facts confirmed everyday to us all in our experience of life. If the result of a definition is to make them seem to be illusions, so much the worse for the definition; we must enlarge it till it is broad enough to answer to realities.”

John Salmond defined law as a body of principles recognized and applied by the State in the administration of justice. In his view, law is an instrument of justice.

Law, according to Léon Duguit, does not depend on the will of sovereign or the will of man but on social realities. According to his theory, ruler is also bound hand and foot by a law, which he cannot change it. His theory is akin to the natural law theory. Law is the product of social facts.

According to Rudolf Stammler, who developed Kant’s theory, law exists to bind together the community, it is sovereign, and cannot be violated with impunity. Since law exists to harmonize the purposes of the individuals, law itself strives towards justice. Law can exist in fact if an actual society exists.

Hans Kelsen expounded ‘pure theory of law’. He, like John Austin, kept law separate from morals and completely ignored morals in his pure science of law. To him, justice is an irrational ideal.

Roscoe Pound suggested that law should be used as an instrument of social control.

Justice P.B. Mukherjee, Former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court in India, gave a very comprehensive meaning of law:

“In the garden of forest of jurisprudence, there are many fruits. Law is divine. Law is natural. Law is custom. Law is contract. Law is command of the human sovereign. Law is a social fact. Law is a union of primary and secondary rules. Law is prediction. Law is experience. Law is unrealizable ideal. Law is practical and realizable compromise. Law is balance of social and individual interests. Law is morality. Law is what the judges say from the bench. Law is tradition. The Law is different from “Laws” Roscoe Pound. Confusing as all this may appear, and which confusion led someone to say that law is an Ass, there is perhaps a strain of fusion in the midst of all this confusion. If the law is like beast of burden, it is because law has to bear many burdens of human life in action, old and new, predictable and unpredictable.”

The highly enlightened readers may judge the concept of justice and law what Premier Suzuki of Japan and General Eisenhower of USA thought of in their expressed statements. The war with Germany had ended, but the war with Japan was in progress.

Premier Suzuki spoke:

From the very beginning the Greater East Asia war has been a holy war…. “Our Fundamental policy is based on justice and righteousness…” This means that Japan, is fighting a war to uphold the principle of human justice and we must fight to that last. (New York Times June 10:1945, p.3, col.2)

Eisenhower spoke the next day without knowing of Suzuki’s statement:

This was a holy war. More than any other war in history, this war has been an array of the forces of evil against those of righteousness (New York Times, June 11, 1945, p.5, col.4).

In fact, there are too many laws, rules and procedures, but less justice.

However, only justice should be the law, and then law would be justice. Korean peace thinker Young Seek Choue says, “Justice must be built upon truth and law must be the manifestation of justice. Thus, justice and law must be the same, and they must be lasting, unalterable, and universal.” Regarding peace, he deals with three concepts: 1. Chung-ji-right understanding, 2. Chung-pan-right judgment, and 3. Chung-Haeng-right conduct. These elements generate peace with justice.

Mahatma Gandhi’s search for truth is justice which should be guaranteed and protected by law. He said, “All the world over true peace depends not upon gun-power but upon pure justice.” He perceives, “The first condition of non-violence is justice all around in every department of life. Peace is non-violence restored with justice and equity.”

Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India and Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, in his book: New Dimensions of Justice, says, “Justice is the ideal to be achieved by law. Law is a set of general rules applied in general administration of justice, Justice is in a cause, and depends on application of law to a particular case. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law… “Law as it is may fall short of “Law as it ought to be for doing complete justice in a cause. The infusion of morality for reshaping the law is influenced by the principles of equity and natural justice. The ideal state is when the rules of law satisfy the requirements of justice and gap between the two is bridged.”

Justice Ismail Mahomed, Chief Justice of South Africa, says that whatever be the eventual content of law, its objective must always be consistent with justice. Law does not constitute its own justification. Law cannot be built on law. It must be built on justice, further he says that law is the pursuit of justice which must in principle be rationale for all law. He says that the pursuit of justice is an autonomous, sovereign and self-legitimizing justification for law. There must be a necessary and symbiotic relationship between law and justice sparkles in philosophical insights through the ages from Aristotle to Cicero through Grotius and Thomas Aquinas, and in modem times, through varying angles – Mahatma Gandhi, Gustav Radbruch, and Professor Lon Fuller of Harvard and Professor Ronald Dworkin of Oxford.

Alexis De Tocqueville says that a general law, which bears the name of justice – has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general law of justice. And he puts a question: “Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society in which the laws it applies originate?”

A great ancient Indian thinker and Law-giver Manu said, “Destruction of Law and justice brings about the destruction of society, the protection of law and justice has a protective influence. Therefore, Law and justice should not be destroyed.”

Besides the thinkers who gave their theories of justice and law for peace, there were practitioners of justice who fought against unjust laws and lost their lives for justice and peace. Among them, Jesus Christ (who translated passive justice into active love), Socrates (who fought for the freedom of speculation), John Huss (who advanced unorthodox doctrines), Giordano Bruno (who revolted against religious bigotry) were crucified, poisoned to death, burned at stake and burnt respectively. A great Quaker Thomas Garret, who acted in the emancipation of slaves, was convicted and fined.

However, though we have several theories of justice and law, and we have the examples of role models of the practitioners of justice; justice and peace are yet to be achieved by the people within the nations and by the nations in the world.

In modern times, since 1815 there are about 1000 peace treaties, agreements and pacts, and peace movements all over the world for working in different areas of human life to end existing violence and war, preventing an impending war, and educating contemporaries to a different view of world order. Apart from these, we have UN Charter, UN Declaration of Human Rights, International Law (which sources listed in International Court of Justice) based on justice for peace to all.

But some of the signatory nation States are the most violators of human rights as it is evident from the report of Amnesty International. The Human Rights Organization’s Global Survey Report covers 142 countries and uncovers massive and ruthless violation of human rights in practically every part of the world. It unfolds a sordid tale of man’s inhumanity to man.

And also indirect and structural forms of violence can be seen in the shape of concerns like apartheid, economic depression, discrimination against minorities including women and the denial of human rights. These forms of violence, not immediately visible, are built into our social, political and economic structures.

Even UN peace keepers have been violators of human rights. The 34 page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, accuses UN peace keepers from Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal of seeking to obstruct UN efforts to investigate a sexual abuse scandal that has damaged the UN’s standing in Congo. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said there was “clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place in the United Nations’ Congo Mission, which began in 2000 A confidential report prepared by Prince Zeid Raad Al-Hussein-Jordan’s Ambassador to UN-dated November 8, 2004, says the exploitation ‘appears to be significant, widespread and ongoing Fifty countries represented in the UN’s Congo mission.

American soldiers in Iraq, who were supposed to bring democracy and peace there, did inhuman deeds there, Peter Graff of Reuters says that the Red Cross saw US troops keeping Iraqi prisoners naked for days in darkness at the Abu Ghraib jail. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the United States and the United Kingdom must “take a strong and firm stand to ensure that those kind of activities are not repeated, because it does do damage, as you can see from reactions in the region.”

Thus justice is very far away for everybody, whether he is an individual person or it is a nation State. We all as persons and nations are unjust. We violate the law, we distort the law. We violate each others’ right. We exploit and oppress each other.

The reasons are that we are different persons minus man in dealing with each other. We are Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indians and persons of other nations: Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and people of other religions; judges, lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers and other professionals; husband and wife, father and son, brother and sister, and other relations; black and white and other races, but we are not man. Hence we are not just and human. Humanity or humaneness is missing from us.

Existence of laws, courts, police, and armies and like other such rules and institutions also shows that we are not man-human because they are to control us and to punish us for our inhuman acts and unjust behaviour.

It is all due to lack of man-making education. Educational systems of the whole world in the past and the present can be seen to some extent anti-human. The present education is destructive in both ways: it destroys those to whom it reaches; it destroys those to whom it is denied.

Man has been misunderstood since long. This is why there are variety of theories of justice and law. There are many remedial educations, and their numbers are increasing to meet the demands of current problems. But they all have been unable to make people man (human). Hence they have failed to maintain justice and peace in the society local as well as global.

Therefore there is a great need to have such type of education (within and out-of-campus) which can make us man (human). For this, education must be available for all, leaving none, and it should be perpetually life-long, and it should be in all-what are in man. It means what a man is or he or she stands for or what are the elements, which constitute the man. Education must be based on these components (and they are: body, vitality, mind, intellect and spirit) to unfold them integrally because man is made of these five elements. These are seeds in man which require being unfolded harmoniously. Hence different proper courses must be framed for different five elements in man. And this process of education of integral manifestation of these five elements in man should continue life-long for all. The perpetual integral education of the five elements in man will certainly make people human, humane and just. No doubt, continuing integral education for all will close many prisons, courts, departments of police and military, and unjust law will disappear.

Having equal opportunity, but due to individual differences, all will not grow in same pace. Some would be developed high in intellect and rich in wealth. And many would lag behind in many ways. But all-more and less developed being products of perpetual integral education would share mutually their goods and services with the feeling of equity and justice. Rich and talented would use their gains as per their needs, and they would be trustees of the surplus to extend them to the needy ones for their development. It would be clear when we understand the concept of Trusteeship of Mahatma Gandhi. There would be integration in freedom and equality for all. There would be unique combination of spiritual capitalism and material communism. And the results would be that the self-declared governments in non-democratic nations and government of brokers in democratic nations would be replaced by the governments of people to serve each other-not to rule.

However, all nations are not self-sufficient financially to provide education for all and in all, but there are enough resources in the world to meet the basic needs (including education) while currently world population is over 8.2 billion people as of 2025.

It is a matter of distributive justice. It is a responsibility of the rich people within the nation, rich nations of the world and the World Bank to extend their financial assistance to the needy nation States to plan and execute perpetual integral universal peace education for all and in all for making them man (human), who will certainly be mutually just to sustain peace for each other.

Therefore, universal peace education, which is integral manifestation of universally inherent five elements, viz. body, vitality, mind, intellect and spirit in every man and woman everywhere without any discrimination,  that is mother of justice and grandmother of peace.

Universal Peace Education is for all including persons engaged in law and judiciary also including for those who are working for justice and peace. One may refer my book cited below to be enlightened more in this regard:

Universal Peace Education: A Remedy for All Ills

Prof. Surya Nath Prasad, Ph.D.

L’Harmattan, Paris, France, May 20

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/livre-universal-peace-education-a-remedy-for-all-ills-surya-nath-prasad-9782140488580–80186.html

The paper is based on the Editorial written by this author on the Special Issue on the theme: Justice, Law, Judiciary, Education and Peace of his Peace Education: An International Journal, Vol. 13, January-December 2005.

 _______________________________________________

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad, Former President, Executive Vice President & Secretary-General of the International Association of Educators for World Peace (IAEWP); associate professor of education emeritus, the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea. Founder and editor-in-chief of Peace Education: An International Journal. dr_suryanathprasad@yahoo.co.in

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 13 Oct 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Justice, Law, Judiciary, Education and Peace, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.